Page 850 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Leader of the Opposition—the person that has got the position of Leader of the Opposition precisely because Mr Seselja has made the career decisions that he has—and his belated defence of Mr Seselja’s honour. But I have to say, for you to bring a motion lecturing us about our commitment to the Lanyon valley from a person who, three months after being significantly endorsed by that electorate—no-one is denying that—is walking away from them is a barefaced, shameless approach. But I must say we should not be surprised about that from Mr Seselja. We should not ever be surprised about shameless stunts and appearances. We have learned something from you, Mr Seselja—
Mr Hanson: You are grubby. You are very grubby, Katy. It is grubby.
MS GALLAGHER: I will respond to those interjections of “grubby”. I have just sat through yet another question time where every single one of the frontbench team demeaned and insulted every member on this side. So for you to sit there and talk about grubby attacks when we should be actually looking at the big issues is simply laughable, Mr Hanson. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot sit here and say that after the way you have just behaved in question time—indeed, all of your frontbench—laughing, sneering, trying to undermine. That is what you do. If you want to do that for the next four years, Mr Hanson, good on you. Welcome. We expect nothing less from you.
The difference I draw between Mr Quinlan’s departure from the Assembly and Mr Stanhope’s departure from the Assembly is that they certainly were not three months after they went to an election wanting to serve their community. And they certainly were not attempts to knock off a political colleague to go to another job in the federal parliament. That is the difference here. That is what we see and that is what we are responding to.
This is the man that wanted to be Chief Minister. This is the commitment he gave to Canberra: “I want to be Chief Minister. Zed for Tuggeranong.” Remember that? Stickers everywhere. “Chief Minister from Tuggeranong. We’ve never had a Chief Minister from Tuggeranong.” The whole of the Liberal campaign was in Tuggeranong, and when the Liberal Party did not get their way at the election, when they did not make it, Mr Seselja started assessing his options. “Well, what can I do now? I want to win something. I want to be the winner, so where can I win? I know. I can win in the Liberal Party. That is where I will win, and I will get the number one Senate seat and then I will be a winner again.” That is what has happened here. Everybody knows that is what has happened here.
The barefaced, shameless audacity to walk in here and lecture us about what needs to be done in the Lanyon valley over the next four years is laughable. It is derisory; it is wasting our time. We will get on and respond to the needs of the Lanyon valley, and we do take lessons from the election. That is what responsible governments do. We do not ignore what we saw in Tuggeranong. We do not want to see a divided city. I do not like the fact that we have these subregions in Canberra where suddenly Lanyon valley is pitted against Molonglo and Molonglo gets everything and Lanyon gets nothing. They are the debates that you guys are driving, and you are very happy to drive them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video